On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:24:50AM +0000, CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/2024 10:51, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> > Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless
> > this email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] intel_iommu: make types match
> >>
> >> From: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
> >>
> >> The 'level' field in vtd_iotlb_key is an unsigned integer.
> >> We don't need to store level as an int in vtd_lookup_iotlb.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Clément Mathieu--Drif <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >> index 37c21a0aec..be0cb39b5c 100644
> >> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> >> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static VTDIOTLBEntry
> >> *vtd_lookup_iotlb(IntelIOMMUState *s, uint16_t source_id,
> >> {
> >> struct vtd_iotlb_key key;
> >> VTDIOTLBEntry *entry;
> >> - int level;
> >> + unsigned level;
> > Will it bring any issue if int is used?
> It shouldn't, but it might trigger static analyzer warnings.
> Do you want me to drop the patch?
just write a better commit log.
"Not an issue by itself, but using unsigned here seems cleaner".
> >
> >> for (level = VTD_SL_PT_LEVEL; level < VTD_SL_PML4_LEVEL; level++) {
> >> key.gfn = vtd_get_iotlb_gfn(addr, level);
> >> --
> >> 2.45.2
